Patronage was cultural tyranny in which those with money controlled what was produced and made sure that it was to their tastes rather than the creator's vision and that the political implications lined up with their (ruling class) interests.
Exactly. But then, so is the publishing house model we have today. Its not really a lot different.
Both the big ebook markets, Amazon and Barnes and Noble have built self publish programs, as do a number of lesser known sites. These open the flood gates to a large number of authors. Some are good, some are atrocious. The world has quite enough trashy romance novels if you ask me, but it seems like every 30 something female has yet another to offer.
But the key is no one is standing as gate keeper between the customer and the author. Even well known authors are trying this route.
And how many people have 1 million downloads? I would say the minority, and not the majority...
And how many people have books available for 99 cents? Certainly not the majority.
There is starting to be a fairly healthy self publishing industry, supported by Amazon's "Kindle Direct" and Barns & Noble''s "PubIt" and Lulu etc which allow authors to get books into ebook markets fairly easily. Sadly, some people simply write a crappy introduction to some public domain Classic, and try to pawn it off as a new work, but by and large this does not succeed.
But baring this, the 99 cent ebook really hasn't been given a real chance yet.
I understand the concept of RAM caching - it's not exactly rocket science. But how does Firefox/Opera/IE free up memory when the OS needs it? What is the mechanism by which the OS tells the browser to free memory?
I suggest you don't really understand the concept of ram caching at all.
OS memory management does not rely on the cooperation of applications to free up memory upon request. It simply pages out data-pages on a least recently used basis. Firefox might be sitting on a mountain of cache, but you can bet that 99% of it is not in active use, and the system will simply write these pages out and let some other program use the storage.
It doesn't ask permission from the application. It asserts control. This is true of Windows and Linux, and Mac and Android.
You have to go out of your way to write software that can outsmart this mechanism, usually by touching random and widely dispersed segments of memory in quick succession.
People need to stop looking at memory usage and start paying attention to responsiveness of the machine.
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB) - it could acquire more but everything over that would be swapped.
Wait, you mean like the Setting in Firefox / Advanced / Network / where you can set your own cache limit? That kind of mechanism? Clue: its already there.
If your firefox mismanages cache to the point it bothers you than put it on a diet with the manual cache limits.
But when its the only thing in the machine that is running why shouldn't it use the memory for cache?
Further, the level of the magnetic field that would be required to corrupt a hard drive in a computer would yank the door knobs off and tools could be hung up just by throwing them against the wall.
Bad wiring, perhaps? Running electrical wires in close proximity to the steel joists could cause magnetization of the joists over time. Iron and its alloys are pretty easy to magnetize in that manner./quote
Last I checked we use alternating current in this country.
No it wouldn't be more accurate. You can not make an overly precise value more accurate by making shaving insignificant digits. Any estimate centered within the zone of uncertainty is just as valid as any other. Extra digits do not add accuracy, but removing them does not add accuracy either.
Most often the cause of data loss is the brain fart or the fat finger on the part of the operator, and a backup system that syncs a mass deletion to another drive is not something you want to put a lot of trust in Perfect copies of a corrupted database are equally useless.
Periodic full-image backups are essential, which is why the industry went to tape in the first place. Substituting Disks for tape tempts people to take a cheap and dangerous way out.
But so what? When dealing with money people set their spread sheet columns to currency and pay no attention to significant digits or degree of actual precision.
If anything, this lends more weight to my throw numbers into a spread sheet theory.
I mean with 50% of slashtards thinking there is something wrong with killing terrorists.... Watch the horror as Microsoft trys to help parents limit what their kids watch on TV.
Watch with horror as yet another AC trots out yet another "Won't someone please think of the children post" in support of putting cameras in our living rooms.
As long as you come close to cost, you will make up any difference in the first month of end-user ownership. Books, apps, music, magazines, movies. Bank!
That's either a totally bogus number, or inside information direct from the manufacturer.
Nah, Neither is my guess.
Fire up your telephone team and start polling parts manufacturers, who are often only too happy to brag about bagging a big order for wifi chip sets, touch screens, memory, processors, etc. Most of these places will even leak pricing info. The content of a tablet is well established these days. Crank in some custom plastic work (with 40 tablets on the market this cost is fairly well known too).
Put it in a spread sheet, Crank in assembly, shipping, divide by number of units, an out pops the Bill of Materials cost.
That's why you get things estimated to the penny.
Maybe that qualifies as BOGUS in your world, but the story clearly states " analyst estimates". I'm not sure the word "bogus" can rationally be applied to an estimate.
But it really doesn't matter. Amazon will make up any loss in the first month of ownership due to sales of apps, music, emagazines, and ebooks.
This is a common issue with lockscreen replacements. "WidgetLocker Lockscreen" on the android market calls it the "5 second rule". You have to wait about 5 seconds after turning your screen off to turn it back on again if you want the replacement lockscreen to show instead of the default one.
No, you've misread the article.
If you fire up the phone and DON'T unlock it, but rather let it fall asleep again, when you then immediately wake it again it will be unlocked. At no time did you unlock it. So no 5 second rule should apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. Talk about "out of touch"....
Reynolds Wrap much?
Patronage was cultural tyranny in which those with money controlled what was produced and made sure that it was to their tastes rather than the creator's vision and that the political implications lined up with their (ruling class) interests.
Exactly.
But then, so is the publishing house model we have today. Its not really a lot different.
Both the big ebook markets, Amazon and Barnes and Noble have built self publish programs, as do a number of lesser known sites.
These open the flood gates to a large number of authors. Some are good, some are atrocious. The world has quite enough trashy romance novels if you ask me, but it seems like every 30 something female has yet another to offer.
But the key is no one is standing as gate keeper between the customer and the author.
Even well known authors are trying this route.
And how many people have 1 million downloads? I would say the minority, and not the majority...
And how many people have books available for 99 cents? Certainly not the majority.
There is starting to be a fairly healthy self publishing industry, supported by Amazon's "Kindle Direct" and Barns & Noble''s "PubIt" and Lulu etc which allow authors to get books into ebook markets fairly easily. Sadly, some people simply write a crappy introduction to some public domain Classic, and try to pawn it off as a new work, but by and large this does not succeed.
But baring this, the 99 cent ebook really hasn't been given a real chance yet.
I understand the concept of RAM caching - it's not exactly rocket science. But how does Firefox/Opera/IE free up memory when the OS needs it? What is the mechanism by which the OS tells the browser to free memory?
I suggest you don't really understand the concept of ram caching at all.
OS memory management does not rely on the cooperation of applications to free up memory upon request. It simply pages out data-pages on a least recently used basis. Firefox might be sitting on a mountain of cache, but you can bet that 99% of it is not in active use, and the system will simply write these pages out and let some other program use the storage.
It doesn't ask permission from the application. It asserts control. This is true of Windows and Linux, and Mac and Android.
You have to go out of your way to write software that can outsmart this mechanism, usually by touching random and widely dispersed segments of memory in quick succession.
People need to stop looking at memory usage and start paying attention to responsiveness of the machine.
A mechanism would be interesting where a certain process (say firefox.exe) would have a physical memory cap (say 256MB) - it could acquire more but everything over that would be swapped.
Wait, you mean like the Setting in Firefox / Advanced / Network / where you can set your own cache limit? That kind of mechanism? Clue: its already there.
If your firefox mismanages cache to the point it bothers you than put it on a diet with the manual cache limits.
But when its the only thing in the machine that is running why shouldn't it use the memory for cache?
Creeping drive failure is not uncommon. Especially in that era.
A competent and reputable manufacturer would have replaced the drive.
On the first visit.
Fridge magnets?
You're going with that?
Hint: there are magnets IN the drive way stronger than a foot high stack of fridge magnets.
Open one up sometime.
My thoughts exactly.
Further, the level of the magnetic field that would be required to corrupt a hard drive in a computer would yank the door knobs off and tools could be hung up just by throwing them against the wall.
Bad wiring, perhaps? Running electrical wires in close proximity to the steel joists could cause magnetization of the joists over time. Iron and its alloys are pretty easy to magnetize in that manner./quote
Last I checked we use alternating current in this country.
Not refusing to comment.
Botched technology upgrade is the official response.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203388804576612803222293510.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
that would be even scarier. Six days of spotty service for no good reason?
They have a reason. Its not a good one. I'm not aware of any GOOD reason for a 6 day outage.
Their reason according to the Wall Street Journal article is a botched upgrade.
Someone in IT is having a very bad week.
What part of the word "Estimate" do you find confusing!
They never made that claim.
You made that up.
No it wouldn't be more accurate.
You can not make an overly precise value more accurate by making shaving insignificant digits.
Any estimate centered within the zone of uncertainty is just as valid as any other.
Extra digits do not add accuracy, but removing them does not add accuracy either.
Rsync is not a backup.
Most often the cause of data loss is the brain fart or the fat finger on the part of the operator, and a backup system that syncs a mass deletion to another drive is not something you want to put a lot of trust in Perfect copies of a corrupted database are equally useless.
Periodic full-image backups are essential, which is why the industry went to tape in the first place.
Substituting Disks for tape tempts people to take a cheap and dangerous way out.
But so what?
When dealing with money people set their spread sheet columns to currency and pay no attention to significant digits or degree of actual precision.
If anything, this lends more weight to my throw numbers into a spread sheet theory.
Can't stream feeds....
Famous Last Words.
Right, and everyone is OK with putting a Camera in their living room, or bedroom.
I mean with 50% of slashtards thinking there is something wrong with killing terrorists.... Watch the horror as Microsoft trys to help parents limit what their kids watch on TV.
Watch with horror as yet another AC trots out yet another "Won't someone please think of the children post" in support of putting cameras in our living rooms.
Exactly.
As long as you come close to cost, you will make up any difference in the first month of end-user ownership.
Books, apps, music, magazines, movies.
Bank!
That's either a totally bogus number, or inside information direct from the manufacturer.
Nah, Neither is my guess.
Fire up your telephone team and start polling parts manufacturers, who are often only too happy to brag about bagging a big order for wifi chip sets, touch screens, memory, processors, etc. Most of these places will even leak pricing info. The content of a tablet is well established these days. Crank in some custom plastic work (with 40 tablets on the market this cost is fairly well known too).
Put it in a spread sheet, Crank in assembly, shipping, divide by number of units, an out pops the Bill of Materials cost.
That's why you get things estimated to the penny.
Maybe that qualifies as BOGUS in your world, but the story clearly states " analyst estimates". I'm not sure the word "bogus" can rationally be applied to an estimate.
But it really doesn't matter. Amazon will make up any loss in the first month of ownership due to sales of apps, music, emagazines, and ebooks.
Look, they could GIVE these things away and still make money on them.
The only connect to Amazon's own market and book store and music store.
95% of them will be used by non-hackers, who will continue to buy from Amazon.
In case you missed it, that's spelled KA-CHING!
What does honeycomb have to do with phones?
Google will find you many vpn providers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter).
I've seen them as low as 6 bucks (some with data caps), and for around $18 you get unlimited speed and unlimited data. (purevpn).
This is a common issue with lockscreen replacements. "WidgetLocker Lockscreen" on the android market calls it the "5 second rule". You have to wait about 5 seconds after turning your screen off to turn it back on again if you want the replacement lockscreen to show instead of the default one.
No, you've misread the article.
If you fire up the phone and DON'T unlock it, but rather let it fall asleep again, when you then immediately wake it again it will be unlocked. At no time did you unlock it. So no 5 second rule should apply.